Complaint against Maine law enforcement officials for deprivation of rights under the color of law. October 09, 2009
U.S. Department of Justice November 4, 2009
Civil Rights Division
Criminal Section, PHB
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Title 18 U.S.C. 242
I, Michael J. Dee file this criminal complaint against the following Maine law enforcement officials:
William R. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General State of Maine et. al.
Justice Robert E. Crowley, Cumberland County Superior Court
Chief Justice Leigh Ingalls Saufley, Maine Supreme Judicial Court et. al.
I allege these law enforcement officials have willfully violated Title 18 U.S.C. 242.
Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, ….to the deprivation of any rights, ….. secured or protected by the Constitution ………..shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;”
“For the purpose of Section 242, ….. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include …law enforcement officials, as well as judges ….”
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of law to willfully deprive me of my right, secured by the Constitution, to due process of law to question the reasonableness, the validity or construction of the marijuana laws.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Under Maine’s declaratory judgment statute, 14 M.R.S.A § 5954 and the Constitution of the United States, I filed a civil action to question the reasonableness, the ”construction and validity” of a civil law 22 M.R.S.A § 2383, and a criminal law 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117 that proscribe marijuana. (Attached 1-4)
Title 14M.R.S.A § 5954. Construction and validity of statutes. Any person ….. whose rights …… are affected by a statute, ……. may have determined any question of construction or validity arising
1
under … statute….obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
The enforcement of the civil law has deprived me of my liberty and my property “rights” and both laws threatened my individual “rights” to privacy, to liberty and to property secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. (A 1-4). These law enforcement official deny these claims.
Judge Crowley dismissed my petition and wrote in his ORDER the following:
Dee “filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in this court in December 2006. Contending that he has a fundamental right to possess marijuana…” (A. 5-6)
“Simply put, usage of marijuana has not been recognizes as a fundamental constitutional right. Dee’s challenge, therefore, is subjected only to rational review.” (A. 9)
“This court cannot change the marijuana laws, and explicitly finds that there currently is no basis for invalidating them because the legislature had a rational basis for enacting them, and they do not encroach upon any fundamental right.” (A. 10) (emphasis added)
Judge Crowley willfully misrepresent my demand for relief in my complaint. I did not ask the court to declare marijuana is a fundamental right. It is a lie to say criminal laws do not encroach upon any fundamental rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a judgment:
A. To declare Maine Statues Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) possession and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D) growing marijuana, are unjustified therefore unreasonable and contravened the plaintiff’s Amendment IV right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures and therefore unconstitutional. (A. 4)
B. To declare the Maine Statues, Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 2381(1) (1992) and Title 17-A M.R.S.A § 1117(2)(D), are not narrowly drawn and are merely rationally related to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy and therefore violates “due process of law” of Amendment V and they are unconstitutional. (A. 4)
William R. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES to the
Maine Supreme Judicial Court also willfully misrepresents controversy presented and the relief I requested.
2
“Whether Maine Residents Have A Fundamental Constitutional Right To Possess, Use, Or Cultivate Marijuana For Personal Use.”(A. 12)
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ignored my Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and wrote:
“The Superior Court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of these laws in the face of Dee’s challenge was soundly based in state and federal precedent cited in the Superior Court’s judgment.” (A. 13)
These law enforcement officials do not care about my legitimate fundamental rights and continue to declare marijuana is not a fundamental right. Therefore judicial review of a criminal law is rational review. By doing so they declared marijuana is not property and I am not a person.
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
Under the color of law, these law enforcement officials have willfully deprived me of my fundamental right, secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, to “the equal protection of the laws” the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
Amendment V “No person shall ……..be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Under the color of law, these officials have willfully deprived me my fundamental right to due process of law, to question the reasonableness, the validity and construction of laws that affected my fundamental rights to liberty and property and my right to be secure from unreasonable government intrusion.
“The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511(1961).
“The Congress [of the United States] makes the following findings: (1) Individuals enjoy a fundamental right to own and enjoy property which is enshrined in the United States Constitution.” Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarty (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 Title 22 U.S.C.-6081.
“Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to
3
act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to be equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts,” 197 U.S. 11, 27 (1905) >Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 90 (1890).
These law enforcement officials are claiming marijuana is not a fundamental right. These law enforcement officials are saying these laws are rational because the enforcement of these laws do not “offend any fundamental rights.”(A 7). These law enforcement officials are declaring that I am not a person and marijuana is not property. Only persons and property are entitled to equal protection of the laws, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment.
Marijuana is an object of a search warrant. To be on the receiving end of a search warrant is an invasion of my privacy. To seize my marijuana is deprivation of my property. To be arrested or summoned to court is deprivation of liberty.
Just because it is reasonable for the police to seize marijuana because it is illegal, does not mean the law that authorized the search and seizure is reasonable. Under the color of law, these law enforcement officials have allowed the Maine legislature to deprive me of my fundamental rights to liberty and to property without reasonable, compelling justification, without due process of law.
“[T]he rights of life, liberty, and property .. are the fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law.” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.(16 Wall) 36, 116 (1873).
The “guaranty of due process … demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.” Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525 (1934).
“And, unless justified as a valid exercise of the police power, the act assailed must be declared unconstitutional because the enforcement thereof has deprived Petitioner of his liberty and] property without due process of law.” Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 111; (1928).
“ ‘Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling.’” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 497, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 524, 80 S. Ct. 412,417
(1960); Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155, 93 S.Ct 705, 35 (1973); Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 P. 2d 494, 497 (1975).
4
CONCLUSION
Under the color of law, these law enforcement officials are willfully making false statement that I asking the Maine judiciary to declare marijuana is a constitutional right. The facts show I am asking the court to declare the marijuana laws are unreasonable.
This false claim by these law enforcement officials deprived me my fundamental right to due process of law to question the validity and construction of the marijuana laws.
Under the color of law, these officials continue to deny that these laws caused actual injury to my individual rights to liberty and to property because I am not a person and marijuana is not property.
Judicial review of a criminal law by rational review is deprivation of my rights under the color of law.
What is the justice department going to do about it? I expect equal protection of the law 18 U.S.C. 242
Dated: November 3, 2009
Michael J. Dee
PO Box 2021
786 Roosevelt Trail
Windham, Maine 04062
207-893-0287